Eruvin 99b (צט:) — the Talmud in English

Since it teaches

in the Mishna

“and likewise in a winepress”.

And it must refer to a winepress that is a karmelit [for example, one whose partitions are less than ten handbreadths high]. The Mishna comes to teach us that it is forbidden to drink even from a karmelit while standing in a private domain or in a public domain.

For if it refers to a winepress that is a private domain, and it comes to teach us that it is forbidden to stand in a public domain and drink from it, we have already learned this from the first clause.

And Rava said:

this “and likewise in a winepress”

we learned with regard to tithes

.

And likewise Rav Sheshet said: “And likewise in a winepress”—

with regard to tithes.

As we learned

in tractate Ma'aserot:

The obligation to separate terumot and tithes by Torah law applies only to produce whose work has been completed.

However, the Sages prohibited eating a fixed meal even from produce whose work has not been completed, although by Torah law it is not tevel.

The Sages did not prohibit a casual eating or a casual drinking.

The Mishna before us explains that wine found in a winepress [in which the grapes are trodden and pressed], before it descends into the pit, has not yet reached the completion of its processing, and it is permitted to drink it casually even though terumot and tithes have not been separated from it.

The classification of the drinking as “casual drinking” depends on several factors:

a. Drinking over the winepress itself, rather than taking the wine outside the winepress.

b. The possibility of returning the wine remaining in the cup to the winepress.

For only when it is possible to return what remains in the cup to the winepress is this not a fixed drinking.

One may drink

wine

over the winepress,

while the wine is still in it, before it descends into the pit,

whether

he diluted the wine

with

water

hot, or whether

he diluted it

with cold water

.

And he is exempt

from tithing.

Since drinking “over the winepress” is a casual manner of drinking, and casual drinking is exempt from tithing when the processing of the produce has not been completed [the completion of the wine’s processing is when the wine descends from the winepress into the pit],

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok obligates

one to tithe when he dilutes the wine with water, whether hot or cold, because by the very act of dilution it is considered fixed drinking. And fixed drinking without separating terumot and tithes is prohibited even before the completion of processing.

And the Sages say: With hot water, he is liable.

If he diluted the wine with hot water, he is obligated to tithe even when drinking over the winepress. Since he cannot return the diluted wine that remains to the winepress, because the hot water will spoil the wine in the winepress, his intention is to drink everything that he diluted, and thereby his drinking becomes fixed drinking.

And with cold water,

if he diluted the wine with cold water,

he is exempt

from tithing,

because he returns what remains

of the diluted wine back into the winepress after drinking a little; therefore, this is casual drinking.

And our Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that whenever one drinks over the winepress, it is casual drinking.

And the Mishna states that “likewise in a winepress” means that a person may not stand outside the winepress and bend his body into the winepress and drink inside the winepress without tithing, as a decree lest he take the wine outside the winepress and drink it. For then it would be fixed drinking, which requires tithing. This is unless he inserts his head and the majority of his body into the winepress.

Mishna:

A person may catch

rainwater, while standing in the public domain, that emerges

from the gutter,

a gutter placed along the length of the wall, near the roof, through which the rainwater flows and descends, and he catches the water from there

below ten handbreadths,

within the public domain.

This is permitted specifically when he catches the water in the air.

But “joining,” that is, placing his mouth or a vessel against the gutter, is forbidden, for the reason explained in the Gemara.

And

if

from the pipe,

which projects three handbreadths beyond the roof,

in any event

he

may drink!

It is permitted for him even to place the vessel against the pipe and receive water from it. This will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And we infer:

A person may catch

water from the gutter,

yes;

but he may join

his mouth or a vessel to the gutter

no!

What is the reason?

Rav Naḥman said: Here we are dealing with a gutter

that is located

less than three

handbreadths

near the roof.

For anything less than three

handbreadths

near the roof

is considered like the roof,

by the law of lavud. When he places his mouth or the vessel against the gutter, it is as though he is placing it against the roof, and it is as though he is taking it out of the roof, which is a private domain, to the public domain. But a pipe, since it is three handbreadths away from the roof, is not considered as though one is joining it to the roof. Therefore, it is permitted even to join it.

It was taught likewise

that it is forbidden to join something near the roof, within three handbreadths:

A person may stand in a private domain,

such as on his roof,

and raise his hand above ten handbreadths

toward his neighbor’s roof,

to within less than three

handbreadths

near the roof

in question.

And he may catch

rainwater from the air that descends from there.

Provided that he does not join,

that is, he does not place his mouth or a vessel against the wall at a height of less than three handbreadths near the roof. For that place is considered like the roof, and he would thereby be taking something from his fellow’s domain into his own domain without an eruv ḥatzerot.

It was taught in another beraita: He may not stand in a private domain and raise his hand above ten handbreadths to within less than three handbreadths near the roof and join to it. But he may catch the water and drink.

We learned in the Mishna: A person may catch

from the pipe, in any event, and drink.

It was taught: If the pipe

has a width of

four

handbreadths

by four

handbreadths,

it is forbidden

to join to it,

because

then the pipe itself is a karmelit [and not a private domain, since the Mishna is speaking when the mouth of the pipe is below ten handbreadths].

And when he joins to it,

he is as one who takes from a domain

a karmelit

to a domain

the public domain.

Only when it is not four by four handbreadths is it permitted to join to it, because then it is a neutral domain.

Mishna:

A pit

of water situated

in the public domain,

while the pit itself is a private domain, since it is ten handbreadths deep,

and

around it

its rim is ten handbreadths high.

There is

a window above it,

located in the wall of the house adjacent to the pit—

one may draw water from it on Shabbat

from the pit into the house through the window.

For the window and the pit are both private domains.

Likewise,

a refuse heap

situated

in the public domain,

which is

ten handbreadths high,

through

the window above it—

one may pour water into it on Shabbat

through the window, since the refuse heap too is a private domain.

Gemara:

And we raised a difficulty:

With what are we dealing?

If we say that it is adjacent,

that the pit is within four handbreadths of the wall of the house,

if so,

why do I need

it to have around it

a rim

of a height of

ten

handbreadths?

For the pit itself, since it is ten handbreadths deep, is a private domain.

And since the area between it and the window is less than four handbreadths, it is a neutral domain. Is it not forbidden to transfer from one private domain to another private domain by way of a neutral domain?

And we answer:

Rav Huna said: Here we are dealing with a pit that is set four

handbreadths away from the wall. The rim of the pit is four handbreadths distant from the wall, and the area between it and the wall is a public domain.

And

therefore,

the reason is that there is a rim of ten handbreadths.

For then, when he transfers the bucket from the pit, which is a private domain, to the window, which is also a private domain, he transfers it by way of a neutral domain.

For air above ten handbreadths in the public domain [when the surface is not four handbreadths wide] is a neutral domain.

If there is no rim of ten handbreadths—

he transfers from

the pit, which is

a private domain, to

the window, which is

a private domain, by way of

the air of

the public domain,

which is forbidden [according to most of the Rishonim, its prohibition is by Torah law].

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You may even say

that the Mishna is

when it is adjacent,

the rim of the pit being within four handbreadths of the wall.

Even if the rim is not ten handbreadths high, it is permitted to draw water from the pit to the window. And the wording of the Mishna presents no difficulty.

For when it teaches, “and its rim is ten handbreadths high,” it is not speaking of the rim itself being ten handbreadths high.

Rather, the depth of the pit together with the height of the rim combines to make ten handbreadths.

And

this teaches us that the pit and its rim

combine to make ten,

thereby making the inside of the pit a private domain.

Therefore, it is permitted to transfer from the pit to the window, since both are private domains, and the area between them is a neutral domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

A refuse heap in the public domain

ten handbreadths high—one may pour water into it through the window above it on Shabbat.

And we raised a difficulty:

And

when

we are not concerned lest it be removed,

and they clear away the

refuse heap,

leaving it less than ten handbreadths high, so that it would no longer be a private domain,

and out of habit they will fail to take care and continue pouring into it from the window, with the result that they transfer from a private domain to a karmelit or to the public domain?

But

Ravin

bar Rav Adda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: There was an incident involving one alleyway

whose one end was blocked, while its other end was properly established with a side-post and a crossbeam.

And on its two sides:

One side ended at the sea,

with the sea on one side, whose shore was ten handbreadths deep and thus formed a partition for the alleyway.

And one side ended at a refuse heap,

which formed the partition of the alleyway on the other side, being ten handbreadths high [and the houses and courtyards opened into the alleyway through its middle wall].

And the incident came before Rabbi, and he did not state concerning it either a prohibition

of carrying in it

or a permission.

He did not state a permission, because we are concerned lest the refuse heap be removed,

the

refuse heap, and

lest

the sea deposit silt,

so that sand would accumulate along the seashore to the height of the alleyway and the partition there would cease to exist.

He did not state a prohibition, because

even now

the partitions remain.

But the Mishna implies that we are not concerned lest the refuse heap be removed.

And we answer:

This is not difficult:

This

case of Rabbi is with a

private

refuse heap, concerning which there is concern that its owner may decide to clear it.

That

case of the Mishna is with a

public

refuse heap, which is never destined to be cleared, and there is no concern that in the future its height will fall below ten handbreadths.

Mishna:

A tree

standing in the public domain

whose branches spread over the ground,

with its branches spreading out and descending around it on all sides—

if its foliage is not three handbreadths above the ground,

with the ends of the branches reaching to within less than three handbreadths of the ground,

one may carry beneath it.

We apply the principle of lavud, and the ends of the branches are considered as though they reach the ground. Since the height of the branches at the point where they join the tree is at least ten handbreadths, there are partitions here that are ten handbreadths high.

If its roots are three handbreadths above the ground,

that is, if the roots emerge above the surface of the ground at a height of three handbreadths,

one may not sit on them.

The legal status of these roots is like that of a tree. The Sages prohibited using a tree on Shabbat, as a decree lest one come to detach a branch from it.

But if they are not three handbreadths high, they are considered like the ground, and it is permitted to sit on them.

Gemara:

It was explained above, in the second chapter, that an area enclosed by partitions that is not intended for residence but for storage or the like may be used for carrying only if it is less than a beit se'ah [that is, an area one hundred cubits by fifty cubits]. But if it is larger than this, it is rabbinically forbidden to carry an object four cubits within it.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One may not carry in it,

beneath the tree whose foliage reaches to within less than three handbreadths of the ground, if it was

larger than a beit se'ah.

And this is so even if he planted the tree initially in order to take shelter in its shade.

What is the reason?

But this area should be considered as enclosed for residential purposes, so that it would be permitted to carry within it even if it were very large.